I love Steve Kerr, but I have a funny feeling that he will be a top-tier coach as long as he is coaching 2 MVPs and 4 Allstars. Translation: just about any coach would look good with that squad. Frank Vogel would be known as a shrewd strategist, Steve Clifford would show everyone his lucidness.

It reminds me a bit of how Russell was a great coach as long as he was a player-coach.I repeat, I love Steve.

I love Steve Kerr, but I have a funny feeling that he will be a top-tier coach as long as he is coaching 2 MVPs and 4 Allstars. Translation: just about any coach would look good with that squad. Frank Vogel would be known as a shrewd strategist, Steve Clifford would show everyone his lucidness.

It reminds me a bit of how Russell was a great coach as long as he was a player-coach.I repeat, I love Steve.

under Mark Jackson the Warriors won 51 games, but lost in the 1st round. They replaced Jackson with Kerr, they won 67 games and the NBA title the next season. They followed that up with the 73 win season and then another 67 win title season.

Obviously it is easier to win and win a lot when you have elite talent, but when you take basically the same team that lost in the 1st round and improve it 16 wins and win the title, you are a better coach than your predecessor.

I love Steve Kerr, but I have a funny feeling that he will be a top-tier coach as long as he is coaching 2 MVPs and 4 Allstars. Translation: just about any coach would look good with that squad. Frank Vogel would be known as a shrewd strategist, Steve Clifford would show everyone his lucidness.

It reminds me a bit of how Russell was a great coach as long as he was a player-coach.I repeat, I love Steve.

under Mark Jackson the Warriors won 51 games, but lost in the 1st round. They replaced Jackson with Kerr, they won 67 games and the NBA title the next season. They followed that up with the 73 win season and then another 67 win title season.

Obviously it is easier to win and win a lot when you have elite talent, but when you take basically the same team that lost in the 1st round and improve it 16 wins and win the title, you are a better coach than your predecessor.

I have put Kerr in the 5-8 tier. I rate him pretty high. Check it out on the 1st page.I wiew your arguments more as Mark Jacksons faliure. Taking his team to church...spare us Mark.

I love Steve Kerr, but I have a funny feeling that he will be a top-tier coach as long as he is coaching 2 MVPs and 4 Allstars. Translation: just about any coach would look good with that squad. Frank Vogel would be known as a shrewd strategist, Steve Clifford would show everyone his lucidness.

It reminds me a bit of how Russell was a great coach as long as he was a player-coach.I repeat, I love Steve.

under Mark Jackson the Warriors won 51 games, but lost in the 1st round. They replaced Jackson with Kerr, they won 67 games and the NBA title the next season. They followed that up with the 73 win season and then another 67 win title season.

Obviously it is easier to win and win a lot when you have elite talent, but when you take basically the same team that lost in the 1st round and improve it 16 wins and win the title, you are a better coach than your predecessor.

That's not a very good argument to make in my opinion in this particular case just because Golden State was filled with very young players who'd make leaps each year. Now Mark Jackson did some really good things there, and he was fired for non-basketball related reasons pretty much (though those reasons could affect performance as well).

Now, I do think Kerr is quite the better coach, but the whole argument of "basically the same team" is a bit lost on me when considering a young roster which is including breakout performances from an MVP caliber player (which may or may not have been aided by the coaching, who knows... let's not forget the performance under Luke Walton).

I love Steve Kerr, but I have a funny feeling that he will be a top-tier coach as long as he is coaching 2 MVPs and 4 Allstars. Translation: just about any coach would look good with that squad. Frank Vogel would be known as a shrewd strategist, Steve Clifford would show everyone his lucidness.

It reminds me a bit of how Russell was a great coach as long as he was a player-coach.I repeat, I love Steve.

under Mark Jackson the Warriors won 51 games, but lost in the 1st round. They replaced Jackson with Kerr, they won 67 games and the NBA title the next season. They followed that up with the 73 win season and then another 67 win title season.

Obviously it is easier to win and win a lot when you have elite talent, but when you take basically the same team that lost in the 1st round and improve it 16 wins and win the title, you are a better coach than your predecessor.

That's a bit of an inaccurate way to look at it. Draymond went from a decent bench big to one of the most impacting players in the league. They added Iggy and Shaun Livingston, one of whom went on to be the Finals MVP that year. Klay Thompson also improved a decent amount on the offensive end. Then in the 73 win year they had Curry playing absolutely out of his mind. So to say it was 'basically the same team' is incredibly false

Both are similar in that both of them needed their star players far more than the players needed them. Both are exceptionally lucky to have ended up with those players. Both were nothing special till they got those players. Both did very well with those players.